[1] Mr Bassanese has sought relief in relation to the termination of his employment with Scott's Refrigeration Freighters Transport. His application was made pursuant to section 643 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act). The application is made on the grounds that the termination of Mr Bassanese's employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and was unlawful on the basis that it was in breach of section 659 of the Act.

[2] The termination of Mr Bassenese's employment occurred on 16 June 2006. The application was lodged in the Commission some 15 months outside of the 21-day time limit set out in section 643(14). Mr Bassenese seeks an extension of time pursuant to section 643(14). This decision deals only with this application for an extension of time.

[3] Pure Logistics Cold Chain Pty Ltd (Pure Logistics) filed a Form R28 Notice of Employer's Appearance and a Form R29 Notice of Motion to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction on 29 October 2007. On 31 October 2007 Pure Logistics filed a further Form R28 and R29 advising of an error in the earlier documents with respect to the dates of Mr Bassanese's employment. In the Notice of Employer's Appearance, Pure Logistics advised that it was not now known as Scott's Refrigeration Freighters Transport. Pure Logistics objected to the granting of an extension of time but did not object to conciliation prior to this matter being determined. Pure Logistics also filed a Notice of Motion to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction on the basis that Mr Bassenese was employed from 1 April 2006 to 16 June 2006 and hence he was excluded from making an application pursuant to section 643(1)(a).

[4] A conciliation conference was convened on 14 November 2007. This conference failed to resolve the application. Despite Mr Bassenese's rude and intimidating demand that the Commission immediately grant an extension of time in order that he could pursue his application, I advised him that I intended to consider his application for an extension of time through the process specified in the Act. I further referred the parties to the provisions of section 643(14) and with respect to determining whether to grant an extension of time for the filing of the application outside the 21-day time fame, the Note appearing at the end of section 643 of the Act which references the principles set down in the decision of Marshal J in Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Limited [1]. I advised the parties that, having had regard to the information provided by Pure Logistics relative to the costs associated with holding a hearing, I intended to consider the extension of time application on the basis of written material which the parties could provide to me.

[5] I issued Directions relative to the extension of time application on 15 November 2007. In my directions I confirmed to the parties my intention to determine the extension of time issue without a hearing and provided Mr Bassenese and Pure Logistics with the opportunity to provide written submissions relative to the principles set down in Brodie-Hanns by nominated dates.

[6] Mr Bassenese has twice contacted my office to inquire about these Directions. He has not however, provided any written submissions. Pure Logistics provided written submissions on 5 December 2007.

[7] In considering this application for an extension of time I have taken into account all the information provided to me, including Mr Bassenese's application.

[8] I have applied the following principles set down by the Industrial Relations Court in Brodie-Hanns:

"1. The prima facie position is that the time limit should be complied with unless there is an acceptable explanation of the delay which makes it equitable to so extend. The explanation for the delay is significant.

2. Action taken by the applicant to contest the termination, other than applying under the Act may be relevant. It may show that the termination decision is actively contested. It may favour the granting of an extension of time.

3. Prejudice to the respondent including prejudice caused by delay may go against the granting of an extension of time.

4. The mere absence of prejudice to the respondent is an insufficient basis to grant an extension of time.

5. The merits of the substantive application may be taken into account in determining whether to grant an extension of time.

6. Consideration of fairness as between the applicant and other persons in a like position are relevant to the exercise of the discretion to extend time."

[9] The prima facie position is that the legislative time limit should be complied with unless there is an acceptable reason for the delay.

[10] In his application, Mr Bassenese's stated reason for seeking an extension of time is difficult to discern. However, on the basis of information he provided in the application form I understand that Mr Bassenese concluded, some 10 months after the termination of his employment that he had been given misinformation by the employer at the time of termination of employment. Mr Bassenese's application confirms that his employment commenced on 1 April 2006 and concluded on 16 June 2006.

[11] Pure Logistics asserts that Mr Bassenese has not met the obligation on him to demonstrate an acceptable reason for the substantial delay in filing the application and, in these circumstances, the extension of time should not be granted.

[12] On the information before me, I am unable to conclude that Mr Bassenese has demonstrated an acceptable reason for the delay. Consideration of the remaining factors addressed in Brodie-Hanns is consequently unnecessary. However, I have briefly done so for the sake of completeness, particularly given that I have understood from Mr Bassenese that he is intent upon pursuing a range of remedies relative to his employment.

Action taken to Contest the Termination of Employment

[13] Mr Bassenese has not provided any detail of steps he has taken to contest the termination of his employment. In these circumstances I am unable to conclude that this factor mitigates in favour of an extension of time.

[14] The duration of the extension of time sought is such that I consider that an extension of time would prejudice Pure Logistics. In this respect I have noted that Pure Logistics advise that the Manager who terminated Mr Bassenese's employment is now no longer employed.

[15] Mr Bassenese has filed his application on the grounds that the termination of his employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and that the termination was unlawful in that it breached section 659 of the Act. Mr Bassenese commenced employment with Pure Logistics on a three month probationary basis on 1 April 2006. This probationary period was due to expire on 1 July 2006. Section 638(1)(c) excludes an employee undertaking a probationary period from making an application on the grounds that the termination of the employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Mr Bassenese's application, in so far as it based on this ground, would appear to be excluded. Further, section 643(6) and (7) exclude Mr Bassenese from making an application on the grounds that his termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable as he had not completed the six month qualifying period.

[16] Mr Bassenese has not specified any basis upon which he asserts that the termination that his employment was in breach of the provisions of section 659 of the Act.

[17] On the information before me I have concluded that Mr Bassenese's application is entirely without merit.

[18] The extension of time sought by Mr Bassenese is extremely long. Accordingly, an extension of time would be inconsistent with the Commission's general approach to recognition of the legislative time limits.

[19] On the basis of the foregoing considerations I do not consider it appropriate to extend the time limit for lodgement of Mr Bassenese's application.

[20] The application is accordingly dismissed. An Order to this effect [PR980145] will be issued.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

[1] (1995) 67 IR 298